Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 24 Dec 2019 11:34:11 +0200 | From | Ilias Apalodimas <> | Subject | Re: [net-next v5 PATCH] page_pool: handle page recycle for NUMA_NO_NODE condition |
| |
Hi Saeed, > which is the msix affinity.. the pool has no knowledge of that on > initialization. > > > The reason I want this behavior is that during driver init/boot, it > > can > > easily happen that a driver allocates RX-pages from wrong NUMA node. > > This will cause a performance slowdown, that normally doesn't happen, > > because without a cache (like page_pool) RX-pages would fairly > > quickly > > transition over to the RX NUMA node (instead we keep recycling these, > > in your case #2, where you suggest recycle blindly in case of > > NUMA_NO_NODE). IMHO page_pool should hide this border-line case from > > driver developers. > > > > So, Ilias's #1 suggestion make sense, to always store a valid nid > value. > the question is which value to store on initialization if the user > provided NUMA_NO_NODE ? I don't think the pool is capable of choosing > the right value, so let's just use numa node 0.
Again i don't mind using the current solution. We could use 0 or the whatever numa is choosen from alloc_pages_node()
> > If the developer cares, he would have picked the right affinity on > initialization, or he can just call pool_update_nid() when the affinity > is determined and every thing will be fine after that point. > > My 2cent is that you just can't provide the perfect performance when > the user uses NUMA_NO_NODE, so just pick any default concrete node id > and avoid dealing with NUMA_NO_NODE in the pool fast or even slow > path..
I don't have strong preference on any of those. I just prefer the homogeneous approach of always storing a normal usable memory id. Either way rest of the code seems fine, so i'll approve this once you manage to test it on your setup.
I did test it on my netsec card using NUMA_NO_NODE. On that machine though it doesn't make any difference since page_to_nid(page) and numa_mem_id() always return 0 on that. So the allocation is already 'correct', the only thing that changes once i call page_pool_update_nid() is pool->p.nid
Thanks /Ilias > > > --Jesper > > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 06:06:49PM +0200, Ilias Apalodimas wrote: > > > > On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 04:22:54PM +0100, Jesper Dangaard Brouer > > > > wrote: > > > > > On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 12:49:37 +0200 > > > > > Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 11:41:16AM +0100, Jesper Dangaard > > > > > > Brouer wrote: > > > > > > > On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 12:23:14 +0200 > > > > > > > Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Jesper, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I like the overall approach since this moves the check > > > > > > > > out > > > > > > > > of the hotpath. @Saeed, since i got no hardware to test > > > > > > > > this on, would it be possible to check that it still > > > > > > > > works > > > > > > > > fine for mlx5? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > > + struct ptr_ring *r = &pool->ring; > > > > > > > > > + struct page *page; > > > > > > > > > + int pref_nid; /* preferred NUMA node */ > > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > > + /* Quicker fallback, avoid locks when ring is > > > > > > > > > empty */ > > > > > > > > > + if (__ptr_ring_empty(r)) > > > > > > > > > + return NULL; > > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > > + /* Softirq guarantee CPU and thus NUMA node is > > > > > > > > > stable. This, > > > > > > > > > + * assumes CPU refilling driver RX-ring will > > > > > > > > > also run RX-NAPI. > > > > > > > > > + */ > > > > > > > > > + pref_nid = (pool->p.nid == NUMA_NO_NODE) ? > > > > > > > > > numa_mem_id() : pool->p.nid; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One of the use cases for this is that during the > > > > > > > > allocation > > > > > > > > we are not guaranteed to pick up the correct NUMA node. > > > > > > > > This will get automatically fixed once the driver starts > > > > > > > > recycling packets. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't feel strongly about this, since i don't usually > > > > > > > > like hiding value changes from the user but, would it > > > > > > > > make > > > > > > > > sense to move this into __page_pool_alloc_pages_slow() > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > change the pool->p.nid? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Since alloc_pages_node() will replace NUMA_NO_NODE with > > > > > > > > numa_mem_id() regardless, why not store the actual node > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > our page pool information? You can then skip this and > > > > > > > > check > > > > > > > > pool->p.nid == numa_mem_id(), regardless of what's > > > > > > > > configured. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This single code line helps support that drivers can > > > > > > > control > > > > > > > the nid themselves. This is a feature that is only used my > > > > > > > mlx5 AFAIK. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do think that is useful to allow the driver to "control" > > > > > > > the nid, as pinning/preferring the pages to come from the > > > > > > > NUMA node that matches the PCI-e controller hardware is > > > > > > > installed in does have benefits. > > > > > > > > > > > > Sure you can keep the if statement as-is, it won't break > > > > > > anything. Would we want to store the actual numa id in > > > > > > pool->p.nid if the user selects 'NUMA_NO_NODE'? > > > > > > > > > > No. pool->p.nid should stay as NUMA_NO_NODE, because that makes > > > > > it > > > > > dynamic. If someone moves an RX IRQ to another CPU on another > > > > > NUMA node, then this 'NUMA_NO_NODE' setting makes pages > > > > > transitioned automatically. > > > > Ok this assumed that drivers were going to use > > > > page_pool_nid_changed(), but with the current code we don't have > > > > to > > > > force them to do that. Let's keep this as-is. > > > > > > > > I'll be running a few more tests and wait in case Saeed gets a > > > > chance to test it and send my reviewed-by > > > >
| |